~    TAXONOMIES OF OFFENDERS    ~

One way of simplifying the maze of information about offenders is to categorize them into broad types sharing common characteristics. Among the most significant taxonomies is fixation versus regression (Groth and Birnbaum, 1978). They had investigated convicted child sexual assaulters in Massachusetts in the 1970s. In every case there had been physical contact with the child. On the basis of this, two categories -- fixated and regressed -- were proposed: 

"'Fixation' is defined as a temporary or permanent arrestment of psychological maturation resulting from unresolved formative issues which persist and underlie the organization of subsequent phases of development. A fixated offender has from adolescence been sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to significantly younger persons. Sexual involvement with peer-age or older person, were this has occurred, has been situational in nature and has never replaced the primary sexual attraction to and preference for underage persons." 
(Groth and Birnbaum, 1978, p. 176) 

"'Regression' is defined as a temporary or permanent appearance of primitive behavior after more mature forms of expression had been attained, regardless of whether the immature behavior was actually manifested earlier in the individual's development. A regressed offender has not exhibited any predominant sexual attraction to younger persons during his sexual development -- if any such involvement did occur during adolescence, it was situational or experimental in nature. Instead, this individual's socio-sexual interests have focused on peer-age or adult persons primarily or exclusively." 
(Groth and Birnbaum, 1978, p. 177) 

While this may make good sense, it holds a convenient subtext for offenders. In Groth and Birnbaum's sample there were clear life 

[Page 19]

experience differences between the two types. Marriage, for instance, was rare among fixated offenders (only 12%), but common in the regressed type (75%).  Strangers or acquaintances were the most , frequent victims of fixated offenders (83% of cases); for regressed offenders, victims were more often friends or relatives (53% of cases). 

The two types perpetrated much the same sorts of sexual acts; penetration was equally common and the modus operandi were similar (i.e. the rates of seduction and enticement, intimidation and threat, and force or attack were much the same). 

The description of the regressed type portrays them as "normal" heterosexual men who under the pressures of adult family life, turn to underage people for sexual "comfort". In other words, responsibility is deflected away from the offender. Once a man has adopted "an adult sexual relationship" then any deviation from this is the responsibility of his situation -- which needs to be dealt with, rather than his sexual orientation towards children. 

This might appear reasonable since such men can apparently function sexually as adults. After all, they are frequently married. But this does not prove that the other requirement of "regression" is met -- the absence of a concurrent, continuing sexual orientation to children. In Graham's case, knowing the full details it is hard to describe him as "regressed". Interviewed in other circumstances, he might have blamed his offences on his wife's lack of sexual interest in him or on stress. 

So what of married offenders within the family? How could they be classified as anything other than regressed? Clearly information is needed about their sexuality and fantasy -- but their honesty is a prerequisite for this. Take the man who abuses his stepchildren. If his wife dresses as a child when they have intercourse, if he fantasizes that she is an 11-year-old and if his offending is not limited to his stepchildren, would we say that he is a regressed heterosexual? Presumably not, but this pertinent information may not be known to us. Given the underreporting of abuse, case records may lack information about other relevant offences. His therapist may not seek this information, believing that regression accounts for his case. 

A number of other issues can be raised about the fixation/regression typology: 

[Page 20]

Conte (1985) stresses the inadequacy of its underlying theory: 

"The typology assumes that sexual contact with children is largely a function of the failure of normal developmental processes whereby an adult sees himself primarily as a child and, therefore, seeks sexual contact with children or a maladaptive response to stress. In fact, no such connection has been demonstrated. 
For example, the onset of sexual contact with children in many cases cannot be tied to any stress in the adult's life. As many professionals talk about the typology, they indicate the belief that fixated offenders are untreatable and regressed treatable. This is an observation that follows more from studies of incarcerated offenders ... 
At present there are no descriptions of community-based offenders supporting the utility of the fixated and regressed typology nor suggesting that community treatment of one group is more effective than treatment of the other." 
(Conte, 1985, p. 343) 

Reservations are also appropriate about the view that incest is  different from extra-familial abuse, which is based  on three untenable assumptions (Conte, 1985):

1. "Incestuous fathers do not abuse outside the family". 

This is undermined by evidence that incest offenders may well be offending outside the family or raping adult women (Abel et al., 1983). Similarly, nearly half of offenders who had offended inside the home against girls had also molested females outside the home, and one in ten of them had offended against boys outside the home (Becker and Coleman, 1988). 

2. "Incest is the sexual expression of nonsexual needs". 

However, all human sexuality involves non-sexual needs like love and anger. Furthermore, physiological evidence that incest offenders are sexually aroused by children also invalidates this assumption. Research shows that incestuous offenders often have erections to nude depictions of underage children (see Chapter 4). Rather than incestuous offenders being forced by family circumstances towards abuse, at least some have the same sexual arousal patterns to 
children as extra-familial offenders. 

3. "Every member of the family makes a psychological contribution to the development and maintenance of sexual abuse". 

Empirical 

[Page 21] 

evidence that incestuous families are different from others is unimpressive and largely anecdotal. 
Significantly, regressed paedophiles are never homosexuals (Groth and Birnbaum, 1978). But why cannot stress or sexual deprivation drive homosexuals to turn to children? The concept of regression seems to be the problem, not the nature of heterosexuality.